347
Many are unaware of this fact
(files.catbox.moe)
The Luddites weren’t anti-technology—they opposed machines that destroyed their livelihoods and benefited factory owners at workers’ expense. Their resistance was a critique of the social and economic chaos caused by the Industrial Revolution. Over time, “Luddite” became an insult due to capitalist propaganda, dismissing their valid concerns about inequality and exploitation. Seen in context, they were early critics of unchecked capitalism and harmful technological change—issues still relevant today.
On what grounds can you possibly claim this?
By this, I assume you’re referring to technologies like spinning wheels, looms, and similar machinery, correct?
These early mechanizations were not inherently exploitative because they did not separate the laborer from the product of their work. For example, (edit: ideally) a worker using a loom or spinning wheel could complete a day’s work and earn wages that were roughly equivalent to the difference between the revenue from selling the product and the cost of materials. (edit: This doesn’t mean that the laborer wasn’t being exploited at all, only that the mechanical innovations were not leading the exploitation).
However, this all changed with the full force of the Industrial Revolution, where these and other innovations were used (in addition to already existing forces in the field) to separate the laborer from their work. (edit: Innovations did not begin this separation, only amplified the scale.) With the increased scale of machinery, labor became (further) commodified. Machines were no longer designed to work with laborers but to replace them entirely.
This isn't true, though. Cottage industries very often worked on contract, and in fact one of the main demands of hand-loom weavers of the period (unlike the Luddites, who were largely specialists) was for parliamentary regulation of the wage they received, not regulation of selling or buying price or like demands that would reflect ownership of the produced goods.
Alienation in the Marxist sense had already taken place long before this.
I wasn’t saying the mechanizations weren’t part of an exploitative system. What I meant is that the machines themselves weren’t designed to exploit, but the exploitation came from the broader structure of cottage industries and the contract-based work. I wasn’t claiming labor alienation started with the Industrial Revolution—just that it became more mechanized with the rise of factories. (I will edit my above comment to clarify the confusion.)
Exactly, and that’s the point I was making. The Industrial Revolution didn’t create alienation, but it intensified and mechanized it.
That's the literal opposite of what you said and what the entire argument of your comment implies.
Deciding what I said before during and after I said it once again. I’m sorry to say this man as I once had a lot of respect for you, but telling people what they mean to say even as they constantly correct you is the epitome of bad faith. Blocked.
It is quite literally what you said.
When most people say "Deciding what I said", they would mean "making something up that I didn't say" not "quoting me".
I'm sorry that you think reality changes depending on what you want at any given moment.
Temp unblock as I am editing comments for undertandability. One last tip for you: When I encounter a misunderstanding I have made about what someone meant, I apologize, ask questions, and perhaps give some recommendations about how they might communicate that better. We all make typos and bad grammar judgments. Check through my thousands of comments and you will see dozens of examples of me working through miscommunications with others—both errors on mine and their end that we identify and engage with as unintentional imperfections.
What you do when you encounter a misunderstanding is: “Jesus Fucking Christ” “I’m sorry that you think reality changes depending on what you want at any given moment.” “It is quite literally what you said.”
These are poor communication skills and they hurt the people around you.
This is the third such argument we've had inside of, what, a month? In all three cases you've followed the same pattern of making disingenuous arguments, feigning ignorance, and then backpedaling and denying you made any arguments that had been sufficiently attacked.
Wrapping dogshit arguments in niceness doesn't make the dogshit nicer. It devalues niceness.
I love that 'quoting someone' is 'poor communication skills' according to you.